Disposed

Faizal Thaikkadan v. the Kotakkal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC17 Jan 2020WP(C)/441/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned a default in a cash credit facility. The High Court of Kerala directed the respondent bank to provide a detailed statement of accounts and permitted the petitioner to clear dues in 10 monthly installments after depositing Rs.2,00,000/- as proof of bonafides, subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed bank to furnish accounts; allowed petitioner to clear dues in 10 monthly installments after depositing Rs.2,00,000/- as proof of bonafides.

Faizal Thaikkadan Vs the Kotakkal Co-Operative Urban… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.441 OF 2020(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FAIZAL THAIKKADAN, AGED 51, S/O.MUHAMMED, THAIKKADAN HOUSE, KAPPIL, VENGARA VAZHI, CHERUR.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676304

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL SRI.P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE KOTAKKAL CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD. NO.1378, HED OFFICE KOTTAPADI, KOTAKKAL.P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶11

ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶14

W.P.(C) No. 441 of 2020

¶15

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2020

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “

¶18

i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 and to direct the respondent to regularize the loan account leading to Exhibit P1 by permitting the petitioner to pay the alleged overdue amount due pursuant to Exhibit P1 in 20 installments or in the alternative to pay the entire amount die in 60 installments after giving due credit to the payments made by the petitioner by issuing a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ direction or Order.

¶19

ii. To grant such other relief in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.”

¶20

Heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel appearing for

¶21

the petitioner and Sri.P.J.Devaprasanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent (The Kottakkal Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd).

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent bank was specifically instructed to get instructions in

¶23

the matter, and today when the matter has been taken up for consideration Sri.P.J.Devaprasanth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent (The Kottakkal Co-operative Urban

¶24

..3..

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 441 of 2020

¶26

Bank Ltd) would submit on the basis of instructions of his party that, since the transaction in question is a cash credit facility given by the respondent bank to the petitioner, there is no question of regularizing the said default account, and that the total outstanding dues in this transaction to be paid by the petitioner for closure of the account is Rs.25,30,000/- as on 13.1.2020. Further that, in case the petitioner complies with the conditional interim order passed by this Court on 9.1.2020 to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to prove his bonafides, then the respondent bank is prepared to give one last opportunity to the petitioner to clear the entire outstanding dues in 8 equal monthly instalments.

¶27

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the said instalment facility may be extended to 12 monthly instalments.

¶28

After hearing both sides it appears that, due to the persuasion of this Court the respondent bank does not appear to have serious objection to the suggestion made by this court, that the said instalment facility could be extended to 10 instalments instead of 8 instalments mentioned by the respondent bank, but subject to stringent conditions.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 441 of 2020

¶30

..4..

¶31

Accordingly the following directions and orders are

¶32

passed:

¶33

(i) The competent official of the respondent bank shall immediately furnish a comprehensive and authenticated statement of accounts pertaining to the instant loan transaction so as to precisely and clearly show the total dues to be paid by the borrower in the above transaction and the details may also be shown in the said statement, as to how the said figures have been arrived at, to the petitioner and this may be done within one week.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner should immediately pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent bank on or before 31.1.2020.

¶35

(iii) In case the petitioner complies with the said direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent bank on or before 31.1.2020, then the petitioner shall be permitted to clear the balance of total outstanding dues which is to be paid in 10 equal monthly instalments, on or before the last day of the month concerned, viz, the deposit of 1^st instalment should be on or before 28.2.2020, etc.

¶36

(iv) Until the expiry of said outer time limit, further steps in pursuance of the impugned proceedings shall be kept in abeyance by the respondent bank. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner should also pay all applicable charges in the above transaction.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 441 of 2020

¶38

..5..

¶39

(v) On the other hand, if the petitioner defaults with any one of the abovesaid conditions, then the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further with the impugned steps from the stage where it has stopped.

¶40

With these observations and directions, the above Writ

¶41

Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶44

MMG

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 441 of 2020

¶46

..6..

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1

¶50

TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.2291/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI.

Faizal Thaikkadan v. the Kotakkal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizal Thaikkadan v. the Kotakkal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anumol L.S Vs the Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. NO.1761

T.B.Sreenivasan, Vs the District Collector

Ahnas Mohammed Vs the Asst.State Tax Officer

K.K.Haneefa Vs the Branch Manager

Jayaprakash K., Vs the Calicut Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Sundar Raj T Vs the Authorized Officer